The yields in that subsector range from close to 6% for the largest and most conservative partnerships to many in the 9%-to-15% range for distributions from more aggressive partnerships; those distributions are well covered by distributable cash flow (the appropriate metric).

And there are significant tax benefits that go with these distributions.

Moreover, since most returns on partnership infrastructure are fixed-fee, the midstream is not as sensitive as the upstream to low prices for crude oil and natural gas. The partnerships own and operate gathering, processing, treating, compression, storage, transportation, liquefaction, and export-related facilities. These have helped to make, and will help to retain, the U.S. as the leading energy player globally. Certainly, that is worth its own analysis.

Elliot Miller, Naples, Fla.

To the Editor: Pipelines are basically toll roads for oil and gas with little correlation to prices at the wellheads. A healthy economy, which we have now, is more important. Some of the MLPs sport yields in excess of 13% and impressive distribution growth rates, for example, Tallgrass Energy—16 straight quarters of dividend increases and a 13.7% yield. Yes, individual MLPs require filing the dreaded K-1 tax forms, but investors can participate by buying one of several exchange-traded funds that pay monthly and do not require K-1 filing, for example, Cohen & Steers MLP Income (10.5%). Yield-starved investors might find this sector attractive.

Robert T. Mann, First Georgetown Securities, Alexandria, Va.

To the Editor: In the U.S., more oil is used to produce plastics than gasoline. This could result in higher oil prices, despite the future impact of electric vehicles. While the article mentions a closed-end fund paying a dividend of 3.1%, it doesn’t cover many similar funds holding oil and gas pipeline firms that are paying 10% to 13%. Some of these pay monthly dividends, which are attractive to retirees. Several of the pipeline firms have raised dividends in recent months, though energy prices remain depressed.

William Schaefer, Westfield, Ind.

To the Editor: Energy has been the poorest performing sector by far in the past decade for a simple reason—many of these companies can’t make a profit. While the U.S. has doubled its oil and gas output during this time, that has mainly been due to hydraulic fracturing—a process that, despite all the hype, is still not profitable and actually has led to losses in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Over the past several years, many reports on either the top 29 or top 40 companies focused on hydraulic frackers show that they have never once in any year over the past decade been able to show positive cash flow. Not even when the price of oil was more than $100 a barrel.

In addition, this industry has had over 172 companies with well over a $100 billion in debt go through bankruptcy in the past four years with residual values averaging only $0.22—less than half of what a normally distressed company might show.

Lastly, as the ex-CEO Scott Schlotterbeck of driller EQT said recently at a chemical conference, “The technological advancements developed by the industry have been the weapons of its own suicide, and, unfortunately, the industry still has not fully realized how it’s killing itself.”

Perhaps Barron’s is right and the energy sector is poised for a rebound, but for that to happen, many of these exploration-and-production companies will have to drill less, not more, so oil can get back above $75, where it probably needs to be for the average fracking company to make a profit.

Having lived through the years of double-digit inflation and interest rates in the early 1980s, it makes no sense to me 1) how we can have over $16 trillion in worldwide bonds with negative yields, and 2) how the Federal Reserve can be so concerned with pushing inflation up to 2%.

A bond that is guaranteed to pay you back less money than you paid for it is not an investment, as I was taught in school or during my years in the business. Also, an inflation rate of 2% will cause serious damage to the purchasing power of a dollar when extended over long periods of time. What am I missing? Despite the recent volatility in the stock market, that’s where I’m investing my money.

Dave Goebel, Damascus, Ore.

To the Editor: Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Finally, Barron’s has shared the tax-efficient, principal-protecting secret of the inflation-indexed savings bond. I reached a point a few years ago where I could max out 401(k) and Roth IRA limits. When I found I bonds, it seemed to good to be true. I now try to max them out each year.

You can actually buy up to $15,000 in I bonds each year, not $10,000. The Treasury allows you to buy an additional $5,000 with your tax return in addition to the $10,000 for individual purchase.

I used to say that tax returns were for suckers. Never loan money for free to the government (ignoring the negative rate environment). Now, I overwithhold by at least $5,000 each year, even making an estimated payment at the end of the year to get the full amount in I bonds. You have potentially helped a lot of people with this knowledge.

James Warfield, Castle Rock, Colo.

Send letters to: mail@barrons.com. To be considered for publication, correspondence must bear the writer’s name, address, and phone number. Letters are subject to editing.

Letters to Barron’s

To The Editor: I enjoyed Andrew Bary’s cover story showing the benefits of upstream energy investments (“Wall Street Has Abandoned Oil and Gas Stocks.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.